Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Fate Of Jesus Followers
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 47 (363622)
11-13-2006 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
11-13-2006 2:42 PM


heading Off Topic?
What do you mean by "militant" Christianity?
Hymn #658 IIRC.
So far, other than tradition, most originating in the Middle Ages or later, there are almost NO sources telling us what happened to any of Jesus Followers.
There are NO sources that say that the followers of Jesus other than Stephen were martyred for their faith. Even Paul and Peter could well have been political as oppposed to theological.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 11-13-2006 2:42 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-14-2006 3:29 AM jar has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 32 of 47 (363701)
11-14-2006 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
11-13-2006 3:05 PM


Re: heading Off Topic?
Looks like we have no choice but to wander off topic. It's that or throw in the towel. No solid evidence for the martyrdom of the twelve disciples exists.
Request to fundamentalists, evangelicals, and other fans of warmed-over Josh MacDowellisms: please stop citing the lifelong devotion of the twelve disciples as evidence for the factual truth of Christian claims. No evidence exists for the evidence.
____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : Brev.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 11-13-2006 3:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 11-14-2006 5:35 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 40 by jar, posted 11-14-2006 10:42 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 47 (363708)
11-14-2006 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Archer Opteryx
11-14-2006 3:29 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
All I can say, in conclusion, is that church tradition and accounts of such things should be taken seriously. This whole idea of empirical evidence for everything is simply un-necessary, and I for one see no reason to end my beliefs concerning it.
To do otherwise would be to suggest that the church has concocted stories in the interests of self preservation---and I don't think that this shows respect for the institution and for which it stands.
You are right that we have no evidence.
There is no evidence for a lot of things that will show themselves as reality, however. Its all about belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-14-2006 3:29 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2006 7:04 AM Phat has replied
 Message 36 by nator, posted 11-14-2006 7:52 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 39 by nwr, posted 11-14-2006 9:48 AM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 47 (363711)
11-14-2006 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
11-14-2006 5:35 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
So basically your point is that we should believe stories that are probably legends, constructed centuries afer the event because the Church "deserves" that level of respect. Why ?
I guess that you think that we should also believe in all the fake relics of saints for the same reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 11-14-2006 5:35 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 11-14-2006 7:41 AM PaulK has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 35 of 47 (363717)
11-14-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
11-14-2006 7:04 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
No, but I think thats its time that believers were given some respect as to what they have felt and experienced.
Look, I know that much of church history mirrors the power struggles of humanity. The Bible and the legends and the stories were in part misused to keep a population of ignorant people in check. OK? I can buy much of that. What I can't and won't accept and what many of
critics assert is that an unproven story with no source is as good as a myth.
There are many quacks and flat earth (YEC) people out here, and ridicule is deserved for them.
What those of you who have never met God (impartation, calling, or born-again experience) don't understand is that many of these stories and legends....while elaborated for effect...are probably true.
Of course, I may never convince you of that, but I take offense to having my inner experiences of religion and belief dismissed as unprovable. They most certainly are provable in my mind and heart.
As for the fates of the Apostles? I believe that they suffered persecution...it says that they would in fact suffer for Christs sake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2006 7:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 11-14-2006 8:05 AM Phat has replied
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2006 8:21 AM Phat has replied
 Message 42 by iceage, posted 11-14-2006 5:25 PM Phat has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 47 (363719)
11-14-2006 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
11-14-2006 5:35 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
quote:
All I can say, in conclusion, is that church tradition and accounts of such things should be taken seriously.
Why?
quote:
This whole idea of empirical evidence for everything is simply un-necessary, and I for one see no reason to end my beliefs concerning it.
Unecessary?
How do we ever come to know anything if not through empirical evidence?
Perhaps, you simply think it "unecessary" when you simply prefer to believe something.
quote:
To do otherwise would be to suggest that the church has concocted stories in the interests of self preservation---and I don't think that this shows respect for the institution and for which it stands.
Why couldn't they have concocted stories? That's what humans do to preserve the things they want to believe in when they have no evidence.
If the church fears the truth, then it's not worth much, is it?
quote:
You are right that we have no evidence.
There is no evidence for a lot of things that will show themselves as reality, however. Its all about belief.
So, what things without evidence for them will show themselves as reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 11-14-2006 5:35 AM Phat has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 47 (363720)
11-14-2006 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
11-14-2006 7:41 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
quote:
No, but I think thats its time that believers were given some respect as to what they have felt and experienced.
Why?
quote:
What I can't and won't accept and what many of
critics assert is that an unproven story with no source is as good as a myth.
Well, then, how are we to decide what is true among the thousands of stories out there which are not supported by any evidence?
We can't make any conclusion at all.
quote:
What those of you who have never met God (impartation, calling, or born-again experience) don't understand is that many of these stories and legends....while elaborated for effect...are probably true.
So, the truth of these stories is something you can't demonstrate to anybody else. You think they are probably true because you believe in God, but not because any evidence leads you to the conclusion that they are probably true.
Well, there are lots of things that lots of people believe solely due to religious belief.
quote:
Of course, I may never convince you of that, but I take offense to having my inner experiences of religion and belief dismissed as unprovable. They most certainly are provable in my mind and heart.
If the only place your experiences take place is in that "inner" place, and you cannot demonstrate them to anybody else, then they are, by definition, non-testable.
Just because you are satisfied with your "inner experiences" doesn't mean anybody else needs to accept or even respect them, phat.
Do you respect and consider "real" all the other religions of the world in addition to your own?
quote:
As for the fates of the Apostles? I believe that they suffered persecution...it says that they would in fact suffer for Christs sake.
The bible says a lot of things, phat.
You can believe what you want, but there's very little reason to think that the Apostles were all martyred.
We just don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 11-14-2006 7:41 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Phat, posted 11-15-2006 10:03 AM nator has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 47 (363724)
11-14-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
11-14-2006 7:41 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
quote:
No, but I think thats its time that believers were given some respect as to what they have felt and experienced.
What you are saying is that your opinion should be given special weight because of something you have "felt and experienced". You're wrong. The only area where that gives you any special credibility is in the content of your "feelings and experiences" and NOTHING more.
Your demand for a completely undeserved respect - a respect that NO human deserves - is worthy only of contempt.
We know that humans create legends. If these stories of martyrdom appear to be legends - if they are not referenced in contmeporary or near contemporary documents - why should we not believe that they are exactly what they appear to be ? Why should we respect you to the point of taking what you would LIKE to be true as the actual truth ?
If your "feelings and experiences" tell you that you deserve to be unquestiongly believed by people in general then you do not really deserve respect - perhaps contempt or even pity - but not respect. Even other Christians should be warning you of your fall into pride.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 11-14-2006 7:41 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 11-15-2006 10:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 39 of 47 (363728)
11-14-2006 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
11-14-2006 5:35 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
All I can say, in conclusion, is that church tradition and accounts of such things should be taken seriously.
Which church traditions? Roman Catholic? Episcopal? Evangelical? Mormon? Rosicrucian? Christian Scientist?
Maybe I should join a tiddlywinks club and take up their traditions.

Just say no to McCain 2008; he abandoned principle when he caved on habeus corpus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 11-14-2006 5:35 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by anastasia, posted 11-14-2006 12:55 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 47 (363732)
11-14-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Archer Opteryx
11-14-2006 3:29 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
It is unlikely that they will do so, but mainly because IMHO the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists believe that anyone enjoying life (other then themselves when they are praising the lord) are likely sinning and so should be punished. The idea that the disciples might have gone on to lead normal lives for the time, maybe even becoming Pastors or Rabbis in a small congregation where they spread the Good News that No One is Born Damned is foreign to them.
They need to feel persecuted.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-14-2006 3:29 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 41 of 47 (363755)
11-14-2006 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by nwr
11-14-2006 9:48 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
So, there is no evidence of how the apostles died. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for how they lived, either. Unfortunate for the sects who beleive their religion was founded by an apostle, as in the people of Southern India who are Catholic, who believe the apostle Thomas evangelized them. I would rather feel sorry for them, as I personally know some of them. But I do not. They are not following Thomas, but Jesus. The details should not make or break your religion. There are anyway tens of thousands of men who died for Christ, whose deaths CAN be proven, but then, you probably can not believe in saints if they are not in the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by nwr, posted 11-14-2006 9:48 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 42 of 47 (363804)
11-14-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
11-14-2006 7:41 AM


Re: heading Off Topic?
No, but I think thats its time that believers were given some respect as to what they have felt and experienced.
The Iranian leader has had mystical experiences - he has had visitations and has been wrapped in a glowing light which no one else in the room experienced. Do you respect and give credibility to what he has experienced and felt? When he launches an attack resulting from his experiences do we consider the possibility the message may have been from god?
There are many quacks and flat earth (YEC) people out here, and ridicule is deserved for them.
Now I am confused. Your demand respect for your own unsubstantiated experiences and feelings and then scoff at others who believe in things that spring from their own faith, internal experiences, and feelings. Just how do we sort this out? What is maybe true and what is worthy of ridicule?
What those of you who have never met God (impartation, calling, or born-again experience) don't understand is that many of these stories and legends....while elaborated for effect...are probably true.
A born-again experience or impartation contributes absolutely nothing in the way to verify or validate "these stories and legends". There is no connection.
Of course, I may never convince you of that, but I take offense to having my inner experiences of religion and belief dismissed as unprovable. They most certainly are provable in my mind and heart.
I think you just put "inner experiences of religion" and psychosis on the same scaffolding?
As for the fates of the Apostles? I believe that they suffered persecution...it says that they would in fact suffer for Christs sake.
They no doubt did. Were they martyred? We don't know, best to leave at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 11-14-2006 7:41 AM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 43 of 47 (363890)
11-15-2006 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
11-14-2006 8:05 AM


Validity of Truth Claims
Schraff: writes:
Why?
Because we have some knowledge of the world around us. We are not scientists, but we didn't just make this stuff up!
NIV writes:
1 John 1:1-4-- That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched-this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete.
Now I realize that these writings were written by humans. I don't believe for a moment that these writings were any attempt to manipulate or sway the hearers except in as honest a fashion as the hearts of the authors conveyed. I do not know...I believe. I cannot know! But what is the juxtapositions between knowledge and truth, anyway? Read what one Biblical scholar says relative to these issues:
RZIM writes:
Methodism Vs. Particularism
In order to weed out false beliefs and gain genuine knowledge, Descartes required that all candidates for genuine knowledge must arise from a method. Correct method (for Descartes, the geometric method) is the key to finding true knowledge. This approach is called methodism. Methodism, in this discussion, isn’t the religious denomination. Rather, it’s an epistemic theory that stipulates this: we know any particular true belief if and only if we arrive at or produce that knowledge by following a correct method.
Here’s a specific example. Suppose someone asks me whether I know the statement, “My coffee cup is blue.” (Let’s call this statement p.) Methodism requires that before I can truly know p, I must follow a proper method by which I know p. So to know any particular truth, methodism says I must follow a proper epistemic method.
Although Descartes’ methodism may seem like a promising way to ground knowledge, it’s fundamentally flawed. Methodism requires that before I can know anything, I must have prior knowledge of the method by which to know that thing. But then how do I know that method itself? My coming to know what method to use would itself require following a prior method.
This quickly leads to what’s called an infinite regress. Every time I try to answer the problem, the problem keeps appearing. I start moving back a chain of questions. But every time I move back to a prior link in the chain, the problem repeatedly emerges. It’s like asking, “What explains Michael’s existence?” If I say, “His parents,” I just raise again the very question I hoped to answer: “What explains his parents’ existence?” “Their parents?” Ultimately, given the methodist approach, there’s no way to end this infinite series of questions. In the end, if methodism were true, I’d have to know something (the right method) before I could know anything. There’s no way out of this double bind.
But there’s another approach to finding the legitimating fact that separates true belief from knowledge. It’s called particularism. Particularism starts by assuming that it’s right to know particular things directly (that is, without following a method) since we find that we already know many particular things. In certain conditions, we directly and properly form true beliefs. And we form these beliefs through a variety of means. We see a tree or hear a train. We compute things. We infer conclusions from things we see or hear. We learn from experts. Each of these processes generally leads to true beliefs. We shouldn’t be required to step back and first prove that, say, our vision is perfect, before we rightly know something we see. That would lead us back to the methodist trap (since we’d have to prove the method that we use to prove our vision is perfect).
So it’s better just to assume that our properly formed beliefs are innocent until proven guilty. With these particular beliefs in hand as examples, we can begin to understand what knowledge is”and gradually to increase the number of things we know.
Phat writes:
What I can't and won't accept and what many of
critics assert is that an unproven story with no source is as good as a myth.
Schraff writes:
Well, then, how are we to decide what is true among the thousands of stories out there which are not supported by any evidence? We can't make any conclusion at all.
( See the above quote. )
Schraff writes:
So, the truth of these stories is something you can't demonstrate to anybody else. You think they are probably true because you believe in God, but not because any evidence leads you to the conclusion that they are probably true.
Admittedly so, yes.
RZID writes:
If I were completely skeptical, I’d disbelieve everything. That would safeguard me against every falsehood. But the problem is that I’d miss out on all truth whatsoever”and some truth might be very important. So that wouldn’t help me much either.
No one urges us to believe absolutely everything. But some very important and influential thinkers do advise us to believe nothing (or very little)”or at least they recommend that we believe only when an idea is incredibly well supported.
Schraff writes:
Well, there are lots of things that lots of people believe solely due to religious belief.
And I suppose that for the sake of argument you could lump all beliefs into a generic category! If you told me that you had experienced a UFO encounter and I knew nothing about you, I would dismiss you as another one of the loons. If, however, I knew you personally, had previously judged your character as rational and sane, and verified that your track record was essentially reliable, I would not disbelieve your experience solely due to lack of empirical knowledge. I would lend some weight to your assertions even if they sounded unbelievable...because I would give you credit for being a character witness. I would not proclaim UFOs as a fact, but I would not dismiss them either.
Schraff writes:
If the only place your experiences take place is in that "inner" place, and you cannot demonstrate them to anybody else, then they are, by definition, non-testable.
Just because you are satisfied with your "inner experiences" doesn't mean anybody else needs to accept or even respect them, phat. .....Do you respect and consider "real" all the other religions of the world in addition to your own?
No, because I dont respect "concepts or philosophies. I respect people. Were I to meet many people from another religion and get to know them, I would probably believe that God (as an absolute) worked through that other religion to change these people.
Schraff writes:
You can believe what you want, but there's very little reason to think that the Apostles were all martyred. We just don't know.
And my point is that I believe that people did not just base their beliefs on "cleverly devised stories" and legends. These events were passed down on a personal level between people who respected each other and who were honest to the best of ther abilities. I agree with you that we just don't know so in a strict sense, this is a belief we are talking about. My point is that stories need not be discredited if told from otherwise rational people to others.
Schraff writes:
Well, then, how are we to decide what is true among the thousands of stories out there which are not supported by any evidence?
We can't make any conclusion at all....as you said...unless we trusted the person making the claim. Like I said, if I trusted you as an otherwise sane person and you presented me a truth (experience) claim I would not dismiss you as outrageous simply because there was no empirical evidence for your claim.
Schraff writes:
So, the truth of these stories is something you can't demonstrate to anybody else. You think they are probably true because you believe in God, but not because any evidence leads you to the conclusion that they are probably true.
Aside from the evidence that I consider myself sane and that I may trust my belief when I see it in others.
Schraff writes:
If the only place your experiences take place is in that "inner" place, and you cannot demonstrate them to anybody else, then they are, by definition, non-testable.
Just because you are satisfied with your "inner experiences" doesn't mean anybody else needs to accept or even respect them, phat.
Yes, I know.
Schraff writes:
We just don't know.
Not yet!
Edited by Phat, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 11-14-2006 8:05 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 11-15-2006 5:15 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 44 of 47 (363892)
11-15-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
11-14-2006 8:21 AM


R-E-S-P-E-C-T
PaulK writes:
What you are saying is that your opinion should be given special weight because of something you have "felt and experienced". You're wrong. The only area where that gives you any special credibility is in the content of your "feelings and experiences" and NOTHING more.
Your demand for a completely undeserved respect - a respect that NO human deserves - is worthy only of contempt.
If a friend whom you have known for a long time and whose judgement you otherwise trust tells you something arising solely from their feelings and experiences, are you going to give them contempt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2006 8:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2006 10:42 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 46 by jar, posted 11-15-2006 10:48 AM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 45 of 47 (363901)
11-15-2006 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Phat
11-15-2006 10:10 AM


Re: R-E-S-P-E-C-T
quote:
If a friend whom you have known for a long time and whose judgement you otherwise trust tells you something arising solely from their feelings and experiences, are you going to give them contempt?
If a friend asked me to give his beliefs special credibility purely on the basis that he had had "feelings and experiences" - without even explaining how these could be relevant I would help him by encouraging him to see a mental health professional. I certainyl would not accept such a demand.
And of course I have no special reason to trust believers - quite the opposite.
I respect the opinions of people who can claim genuine expertise. You demand that sort of respect purely on the basis of your religious commitments and some unspecified "feelings and experiences" (which are worth nothing because there is absolutely no reason to tthink that they have any relevance). Obviously you don't deserve that sort of respect - and I would question even the opinion of a genuine expert if it was so contrary to the known evidence as yours.
So you are demanding MORE respect than I would give a trusted friend or a genuine expert. But without offering any valid reason why you could possibly deserve that level of respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 11-15-2006 10:10 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024